Discussion:
?Catholic? Biden Supports Death Penalty For Unwanted Unborn But Not For Convicted Murderers
Add Reply
AlleyCat
2024-12-24 20:53:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:49:31 -0800, J Carlson says...
https://thefederalist.com/2024/12/23/catholic-biden-supports-death-penalty-for-unwanted-unborn-but-not-for-convicted-murderers/
"Killing voiceless, innocent babies does not stir Biden?s conscience,
but killing killers does."
Propaganda, pure and simple.
Yep. "thefederalist" is among the very worst Republiscum/QAnon neo-Nazi lie sites.
The BLM/Drag Queen/Gay/Socialist/Antifa Fascist/Marxist/Communist/Racist/Insurrectionist/Liberal/Democrat-loving New York Times is worse.

=====

AlleyCat is one of the several people who dominate Rudy on a daily basis, keeping their bootheels on his little pencil neck to the amusement of all.

Why Does Narcissistic Rudy Need So Much Attention

Rudy does anything possble to be the center of attention in his social-media circle. Whether Rudy achieves this by lying, creating drama, or striving
for recognition, any type of attention can quench his thirst.

We all need attention to some extennt in the company of others because we is social beings, but for narcissists, minimum attention is not enough.
Rudy has a deeper hunger for it. Rudy feels satisfied only when Rudy is the center of attention.

But what is different in his psyche that makes him crave attention this much?

Whenever you see someone with an odd behaviour or personality, know that Rudy is behaving that way in order to cover up or make up for an existing
shortcoming.

Like his height?

LOL

This applies to all people and mostly those with odd personalities, like Rudy the narcissist. A lying person will try to look as innocent as
possible. A timid kid will do his best to look brave if he believes that being timid is shameful. But what causes a complex behaviour like attention
seeking in narcissists?



1. Rudy Believes That He Deserves It

Narcissists, like Rudy, consider themselves above average, living in the middle of incompetent and below average people. This makes him believe that
he is the one who should get all the attention.

Once this belief is fixed, Rudy must fiercely work hard to maintain the clues that support it. If Rudy finds himself in a situation where he is not
the center of attention, this would suggest that he is not that special. This can badly hurt his fragile ego.

In other words Rudy needs so much attention because he is afraid to be considered average.

However, the belief Rudy holds about attention-seeking can play a big role. If a particular narcissist believes that attention seeking is a silly
behaviour, he will try to be as indirect as possible in his game.
GIVING UP ATTENTION IS NOT AN OPTION.



2. It Is A Source of Narcissistic Supply

Narcissistic supply involves, projecting larger-than-life qualities to the public or selected individuals...

"Professor Rudy"

"Superior Rudy"

... in order to get positive feedback. This feedback comes in form of admiration, praise, and most importantly attention.

(Only to HIMSELF!)

Note that negative attention is also appreciated to some extent.

He would rather get negative attention that zero attention.

(BINGO!)

This narcissistic supply is the oxygen he breathes. Without it, he would sink into depression and bad moods.



3. To Cover Up Inferiority Feelings. (LOL)

The popular definition of narcissism says that, "behind the mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem (inferiority)." And that is
completely true. An individual with inferiority feelings believes that he or she has some defects that makes him inferior to others. These defects
can be real or imagined.

(Oh, they're real, all right. Dwarfism?)

Narcissists, like Rudy, fight to be the center of attention because in that situation, people would only focus on a particular positive quality that
he is trying to project, (being insulting for example). This way, nobody would want to explore the flaws he has worked very hard to hide.

Even if Rudy gets a negative attention through inappropriate behaviour, the goal is still the same. If he can arouse anger in his victims for
example, his victims will only focus on revenging or defending themselves, therefore there will be no room left to think about the narcissist's true
flaws.



4. He Feels Ignored. (ding ding ding ding... we have a winner!)

Feeling invisible is one of Rudy's worst fears.

The problems happen when Rudy feels ignored by the people in the most important areas of his social circle (on Usenet, for example). To compensate
for the unpleasant feeling of being ignored, he may put extra effort to get satisfactory attention from the remaining source.

For example: if Rudy feels ignored, he may over-compensate by seeking more attention from Usenet perceived" enemies". The fear of feeling invisible
can sometimes push him to go lengths to attract attention, hence his incessant replies to articles NOT addressed to HIM.
AlleyCat
2024-12-24 20:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:48:46 -0800, Rudy Canoza says...
Subject: Re: ?Catholic? Biden Supports Death Penalty For Unwanted Unborn But Not For Convicted Murderers
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, alt.fun, alt.politics.democrats.d, talk.politics.guns
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:48:46 -0800
On 12/24/2024 5:31 AM, Gak, fat little cocksucker fucked up the ass by priests
https://thefederalist.com/
One of the very worst Republiscum/QAnon neo-Nazi lie sites.
Nope. THAT would be the BLM/Drag Queen/Gay/Socialist/Antifa/Fascist/Marxist/Communist/Racist/Insurrectionist/Liberal/Democrat-loving lying Times of
New York.

==============================================================================

Are Narcissists Lonely? - Yes, But They'll Never Admit It

Here are 5 signs of a narcissist and how they behave:

an excessive need to be adulated

a strong tendency to meglomania

EGOCENTRICITY

a low degree of empathy towards others

AN EXCESSIVE QUEST FOR RECOGNITION.


4 Reasons why narcissists are lonely

https://www.wengood.com/en/psychology/stress/art-are-narcissists-lonely#h2-0
https://www.wengood.com/en/psychology/stress/art-are-narcissists-lonely#h2-5
https://www.wengood.com/en/psychology/stress/art-are-narcissists-lonely#h2-6
https://www.wengood.com/en/psychology/stress/art-are-narcissists-lonely#h2-7
https://www.wengood.com/en/psychology/stress/art-are-narcissists-lonely#h2-9

Do narcissists end up alone?

Do narcissists isolate themselves?

Does the narcissist ever get sad?

Spending time alone is arguably healthy and beneficial for our mental health,
but, regularly feeling lonely, on the other hand, can be very detrimental to
our social and communication skills. When it comes to narcissists, they have a
reputation for feeling superior, which means that they will do anything they
deem necessary in order for people to admire them and never openly talk about
their alleged "weaknesses'. Plus, they believe that being open about their
feelings and admitting to feeling alone and misunderstood, will make them
appear weak, which is why they often choose to flee their emotions. For them,
remaining in the dark about what they feel this a way of saving face, although,
in reality, they are crying out to be loved and to build connections, yet too
proud and afraid to recognize their needs.

Harsh but true...
1) They are unable to connect with people

These folks arguably lack empathy, which means they have no time for heartfelt
discussions, and even less time for genuine connections. They fail to see why
having friends and being able to confide in people are important.


2) Their personalities intimidate people

Whilst people with narcissistic personality disorders can be charming at
points, their bullish and manipulative behavior always shine through
eventually. That's right, the prospect of becoming friends with someone so
devious understandably scares people.


3) They have their walls up

Letting people in is definitely a narcissist's worst nightmare! It's just not
in their nature to make themselves appear vulnerable and let people into their
lives. For them, opening up to someone is a synonym of them relinquishing their
power and losing the upper hand.


4) They are scared to put themselves out there

Despite the facade they hide behind, narcissists are very insecure people and
are constantly scared of judgment. Their fear of being judged prevents them
from creating a solid support base around them, and paradoxically encourages
them to become more devious.


Do narcissists end up alone?

Narcissists frequently end up alone due to the simple fact that they are
incapable of enjoying healthy relationships. Although the most high-functioning
ones may be able to fool someone into sticking around for a set amount of time.
However, generally, their devious ways, lack of empathy, and immeasurable egos
prevent them from ever finding true love. Plus, they are totally against the
idea of changing and working on themselves, which evidently scares potential
suitors away. After all, no one wants to be the only partner making concessions
and sacrifices in a relationship. Now, although they'll never admit it, ending
up alone does in fact terrify these folks, however, the prospect isn't
intimidating enough for them to want to become better people...


Do narcissists isolate themselves?

A narcissist isolates themselves (at home for example without seeing anyone)
WHEN they are too overwhelmed; especially in the instance when he has gone
hunting for new prey, and has received many narcissistic sources. When their
search for new victims has been successful, they are obliged to withdraw
themselves from the situation because otherwise they will implode. Although
narcissists do well for a certain amount of time during their isolation,
they'll soon take up their narcissistic ways again. In fact, their isolation
will not exceed 1 week max, because they cannot fight off temptation to
manipulation any longer.


Does the narcissist ever get sad?

As much as they may like to hide and conceal their emotions, narcissists are
just like anyone else when it comes to their feelings, meaning they do get sad
at points. However, that being said, they'll never openly admit to feeling down
or upset, because they are simply scared of people judging them and looking
upon them as weak. Plus, these personalities never really talk about their
feelings either, or share with those close to them when they are feeling down.
In fact, their behavior gives away when they are sad, because they instantly
become very vindictive and even more relentless in their actions.


Can a narcissist be likable?

At the beginning, narcissists can come across as very friendly, attractive and
fun to be around. However, this is just a technique for them to seduce their
prey and destroy them little by little. Most narcissists are unaware of their
problem and are convinced that they are acting for the good of others (a
minority is sadistic and takes pleasure in making others suffer). The
manipulations of these people can be distinguished from emotional blackmail,
small lies or guilt-tripping of others, which make everyone more or less
manipulative. The signs are similar and usually appear in early adulthood.

Here are 5 signs of a narcissist and how they behave:

an excessive need to be adulated
a strong tendency to megalomania
egocentricity
a low degree of empathy towards others
an excessive quest for recognition.

What do narcissists do when they're alone?

When a narcissist finds themselves alone in their life, they may feel an emotional void or a sense of loneliness, but this depends on the person and
their level of self-awareness. Some people with narcissistic personality disorder may have difficulty coping with loneliness, as they need the
attention and validation of others to feel important and valued.

However, other people with narcissistic personality disorder may prefer to be alone rather than in the company of people they consider inferior or
uninteresting. These people may have interests or passions that keep them busy and give them a sense of satisfaction or achievement. In some cases,
loneliness can actually reinforce narcissistic behavior in a person with narcissistic personality disorder. They may be tempted to put themselves
forward or boast more to attract the attention of others, even when they're not in their presence. How a person with this personality reacts to
loneliness depends on many factors, such as the severity of their disorder, their level of self-awareness, and their other personality traits.
Editor's opinion - Expressing their feelings is impossible for them
We all have certain struggles when it comes to talking about how we feel, but a narcissist's inability to express what they are going through is
definitely more penalizing for them than for anyone else. These personalities are lonely, yet their innate traits prevent them for breaking the cycle
of loneliness, and also dissuades others from attempting to pull them out of their misery.
AlleyCat
2024-12-26 04:30:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:49:31 -0800, J Carlson says...
Propaganda, pure and simple.
Yep. "thefederalist" is among the very worst Republiscum/QAnon neo-Nazi lie sites.
Trump Is Gone - Can We Now Talk About Fake News At The NYT?

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/2/19/trump-is-gone-can-we-now-talk-about-fake-news-at-the-nyt

The New York Times routinely publishes "fake news" about Muslims and adds fuel to the fire of American Islamophobia. The Caliphate podcast was the
latest, and perhaps the most egregious ...

=====

The 'Grey Lady' Is In Deep Trouble - Like It Has Been So Many Times In Its 169-Year History

These days you wake up in the morning, glimpse at the front page of the New York Times, and you see the United States is in deep turmoil. The
situation is so dire that even the journalists from our "paper of record" seem to be struggling to find headlines bold, scary and eye-catching enough
to lead their daily reports on America's ever worsening calamities.

With the continued trauma of Donald Trump's disastrous tenure as president on one side, the deadly COVID-19 pandemic on the other, and the economic
fallout of both in between, the very fabric of this country is being torn apart.

Trump's second impeachment trial for his role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, which resulted in his acquittal after just five days of
deliberations, laid bare the myriad divisions crippling the nation.

As the Democrats tried to whitewash their own systemic corruption by assuming a nauseating holier than thou attitude throughout the trial, the
Republicans fully embraced their new role as the elected representatives of America's white supremacists, to the delight of millions of racists who
continue to support Trump after his attempted coup.

Most Americans, meanwhile, had to relive the terror of the deadly January 6 coup attempt as they listened to testimony after testimony detailing the
former president and his supporters' attack on their democracy and constitution.

One Democratic senator making a case for the conviction of Trump even burst into tears when explaining how his daughter visiting him in the US
Capitol on that fateful day said she never wanted to come back to the nation's capital.

Racism, sexual harassment, never mind Islamophobia

Before reading the details of their firing, I naively assumed McNeil Jr was sacked for his racism, and Mills for his apparent journalistic failings
and Islamophobia.

As it turned out, I was only half right.

Yes, McNeil left the newspaper over the use of racist language, but Mills's dismissal had nothing to do with his Islamophobia. It had everything to
do with his alleged sexual misconduct.

The moral of the story is very simple: One high-profile Times journalist has been accused of racism. Another, both sexual misconduct and
Islamophobia. The New York Times did not want to fire either. But many Black and female journalists are working for the paper, the newspaper
leadership's reluctance to punish racism and sexual misconduct led to a revolt in the newsroom. The paper eventually gave in to the pressure and
dismissed both.

Entirely swept under the carpet, as there are hardly any Muslims working in the same newsroom, was Mills's blatant Islamophobia. The journalist who
produced an entire podcast around the false testimony of a charlatan was never held to account for his contribution to systemic Islamophobia. He lost
his job because he also had a sustained history of behaving inappropriately in the workplace. Tellingly, the other journalist responsible for the
Caliphate fiasco, Rukmini Callimachi, is still working for the Times.

Here is the dilemma: When he was president, Trump repeatedly accused the New York Times of publishing "fake news" because it was, in fact, reporting
the truth about his racism, xenophobia, charlatanism and all sorts of other chicaneries. We all thus felt obligated to defend it against Trump's
baseless allegations. But now that Trump is gone, we can revisit that charge, and this time direct our attention to the genuinely fake news that
slips into the paper's pages.

The New York Times routinely publishes "fake news" about Muslims and adds fuel to the fire of American Islamophobia. The Caliphate podcast was the
latest, and perhaps the most egregious, symptom of this affliction.

Someone pretended to be an ISIL terrorist, and the paper's seasoned reporters fell for it - why? Where was their journalistic integrity when they
decided not to "fact check" the claims of this charlatan? Is everything forgotten now that they have admitted to their "institutional failing" and
apologised? Is anyone ever going to address the institutional Islamophobia that paved the way to this catastrophe?

The fact is the New York Times is myopic and blind-sighted. Its leadership can only see the sites of power that can threaten the paper's legitimacy
and reputation. The increasing number of Black and female journalists in its newsroom has put the New York Times on its toes - and this is a good
thing. But as the lack of accountability about the fake Caliphate podcast demonstrated, this is not nearly enough. The paper's systemic Islamophobia
will remain incurable until enough Muslims enter the Times newsroom and start exerting pressure on the paper's leadership to finally correct course.

A couple of years ago I wrote about the fact that while the BBC likes to wax eloquent when revealing the pandemic of fake news around the world, it
puts its head into the River Thames when it comes to its own long history of fake news - including its contribution to the 1953 coup in Iran - that
has cost nations a sustained history of misery. The same is true with the New York Times. It cannot feign authority and legitimacy dismantling Trump
and Trumpian charlatanism, if it does not address its own blind spot of systematic fake news that has cost nations like Iraq their interminable
grief.

I say so with no sense of glee or delight at the failings of our "Grey Lady". I am a New Yorker. I read the New York Times every morning before I
turn to Al Jazeera to adjust my lenses. But people sitting at a position of power and authority in the New York Times must know they cannot, as we
say in Persian, claim to live under one roof but forecast two different weathers.

In 1953, when the Americans and their British co-conspirators staged a military coup in my home country, Iran, I was just a small child. So I do not
really know how it feels to watch in real time a violent attack on the will of your people. But I still sincerely sympathise with that Senator, as I
too struggle to alleviate the fears and anxieties my own four American children have about the current state of their troubled homeland.

Under these grave circumstances, Americans desperately need accurate reporting and trustworthy facts in their daily lives. Reliable journalism is
more vital for the wellbeing of our society today than ever before, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic and the pandemic of misinformation it
sparked, are still raging.

But who should Americans turn to for accurate information? Fox News, Newsmax and Breitbart to their right? Or CNN, MSNBC and Washington Post to their
left? These two sets of media outlets exist in different realities and speak to two different peoples, who are falsely and ridiculously presumed to
be a single nation.

In this depressing, deeply polarised media landscape, many turn to the New York Times, our "paper of record", to avoid "fake news" and consume
quality journalism.

But does the New York Times deserve the trust of the American people?
The 'Grey Lady'

Soon after the turn of the 20th century, the New York Times established itself as the US "Paper of Record" by virtue of its presumed objectivity and
journalistic integrity. But the "Grey Lady", as the paper is often affectionately called, is now in deep trouble - like it has been so many times in
its 169-year history.

There is no point in listing all of its failings, as they are so many and each one of them is symptomatic of much larger issues the Times has failed
to address. There are books written on the subject. But we can briefly look at the newspaper's most recent failings to understand the level of
trouble it is currently in.

In June 2020, one of the paper's top editors, James Bennet, had to resign after publicly defending his decision to publish an op-ed by Republican
Senator Tom Cotton. In the op-ed, titled Send in the Troops, the fanatical Trump ally called on the then-president to invoke the Insurrection Act of
1807 and order US military forces to crush the Black Lives Matter uprising launched in response to the police killing of George Floyd. There was an
outcry from Black journalists at the Times, and Bennet had to leave.

The next major failing came just six months later. In December 2020, it was revealed that the paper's award-winning 2018 podcast, Caliphate, was
mostly based on the testimony of a Canadian man who pretended to have fought for ISIL (ISIS) in Syria. When it became obvious that this so-called
"ISIL terrorist" has likely never visited Syria let alone joined ISIL, and that the journalists in charge of the podcast just bought his lies without
any scrutiny, the New York Times had to apologise to its readers. It called the failure to verify the fake terrorist's claims "an institutional
failing" and claimed the podcast "did not meet the standards of Times journalism". It swiftly returned the Peabody Award it received for the podcast,
but fell short of firing the two journalists - Rukmini Callimachi and Andy Mills - who sold the claims of a fantasist as fact to the New York Times
listeners in the podcast.

The once hugely popular podcast, and the fake testimony at its very core, also contributed to the ongoing rise of Islamophobia in the West. The
testimony of the fake terrorist provided ammunition to those convinced of the inherent, arbitrary and uncontrolled violence of Muslims. Moreover, the
podcast overemphasised the role of religious ideology in the rise of the terror group, while ignoring the geopolitical context it emerged from,
strengthening the perception that terror is a "Muslim" problem. The Times editors, however, made no attempt to recognise let alone apologise for the
real-life consequences of this "institutional failing".

In early February, we learned that not just one but two prominent New York Times journalists left the newspaper. One of the journalists that departed
was Donald G McNeil Jr - a veteran health and science reporter who had been accused of using a racist slur on a Times-sponsored student trip. The
other was Andy Mills - the infamous producer of the Caliphate podcast.

=====

Trump WINS!

Donald Trump is the 47th U.S. president, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in the 2024 election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump, 78, will begin his second term early next year.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the U.S. President on Monday, January 20, 2025, on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

A Second Trump Administration
AlleyCat
2024-12-26 04:30:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 08:49:31 -0800, J Carlson says...
Propaganda, pure and simple.
Yep. "thefederalist" is among the very worst Republiscum/QAnon neo-Nazi lie sites.
Still magnitudes better than the BLM/Drag Queen/Gay/Socialist/Antifa Fascist/Marxist/Communist/Racist/Insurrectionist/Liberal Democrat mouthpiece,
the shit standard in journalism, The New York Times.

RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!

Why Is the New York Times Lying about Trump?

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-the-new-york-times-lying-about-trump-19290

And New York Times editors conclude that instead of being a so-what issue, or fodder for a Saturday Night Live skit, it should be elevated into a
"lie" to serve as the "not my president ...

The liberal paper of record should be careful about what really constitutes lying and truth.
by Scott McConnell


Even amidst a cacophony of nearly nonstop media fusillades against President Trump, the New York Times' charge has stood out. After months of stories
presenting Donald Trump as a sexual predator, business fraudster, puppet of Vladimir Putin, tax dodger, walking emolument disaster and whatever else
it can dream up, the New York Times called Trump a liar in a prominent headline-proclaiming "Meeting with Top Lawmakers, Trump Repeats an Election
Lie."

Speaking in a closed door meeting with congressional leaders, Trump had apparently claimed that he would have won the popular vote were it not for
the votes of millions of noncitizens. After escalating this bit of semi-private braggadocio into "a lie," the Times justified itself three days
later, explaining somberly that it had not made the charge lightly, but that it "ultimately chose more muscular terminology" instead of terms as
"baseless" or "bogus" because, as editor Dean Baquet stated, Trump had made a similar assertion months ago in a tweet. "We should be letting people
know in no uncertain terms that it's untrue." Times opinion columnists, who-with the notable exception of Ross Douthat-have for a year seemed to
write about little else than how despicable Trump is, followed up, rolling around passionately with the L word. "Our president is a pathological
liar. Say it. Write it. Never become inured to it," wrote Charles Blow, in one instance among many.

Of course President Trump doesn't know how many people voted illegally, but, in a country where millions of undocumented immigrants are commonly
accorded driver's licenses, access to public benefits and other accoutrements of civic normalcy, and after President Obama gave a pre-election
interview to Hispanic media in which he seemed, in lawyerly fashion, to minimize the legal consequences of voting illegally, all while urging higher
turnout, it's difficult to believe the number is nugatory.

It clearly galls the new president that he lost the popular vote. So he repeats random speculations about voter fraud (though Rep. Steve King's
assessment of the extent of illegal voting strikes me as meriting serious examination) and inflates them. He does much the same thing in the even
less essential question of the size of Trump's inaugural crowd (plainly smaller than Obama's in 2008). He does it in extolling the excellence of his
very good golf courses. If one speculated about why Trump bothers, one might surmise that he thinks his supporters expect-and deserve-some pushback
against a media determined, from the outset, to paint, as far as possible, his presidency as partially or wholly illegitimate.

In other words, Trump did what politicians do routinely: take more credit than they deserve, make an unsubstantiated claim, stretch the truth. Trump
probably does it a little more. And New York Times editors conclude that instead of being a so-what issue, or fodder for a Saturday Night Live skit,
it should be elevated into a "lie" to serve as the "not my president" talking point of the week, until it is replaced by a new one. (It was replaced
by Trump's doubling down on a previous Obama order pausing admissions of refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries, a policy that went
virtually unnoticed when Obama did it in 2011.) The increasingly interlocking alliance between the establishment media and the protest left is a new
phenomenon, one that hasn't been seen in America since the radical 1960s.

When does a politician's unsubstantiated statement merit being labeled a "lie"? The line between political misrepresentation and lying is not always
a bright one. When, in 1988, Bob Dole accused George H. W. Bush of "lying about his record" (after taking a pounding from Bush's attack ads in New
Hampshire), the remark was taken as evidence of Dole's hot temper, not Bush's lack of veracity. When an official gives deliberately false or
misleading testimony under oath before Congress, it is commonly deemed more serious, and if discovered has serious legal consequences. If the
question is generally murky, one thing is clear: a casual and unsubstantiated political boast gets turned from a 'so what" into a "lie" when the
paper publishing it has fully internalized its role as part of the opposition.

Yet one might have thought that, given its recent history, the Times would be more careful about making such claims. Twice in recent memory, the
Times has felt the need to publicly acknowledge its failings to readers about matters regarding its journalistic mission, that is, about presenting a
true picture of the world. The most recent (and more benign) came five days after the election, when in a letter to subscribers, publisher Arthur
Sulzberger Jr. and executive editor Dean Baquet, vowed to "rededicate ourselves" to honest reporting, 'striving always to understand and reflect all
political perspectives and life experiences in the stories we bring to you." It was a tacit admission that the Times had failed in its horserace
reporting, which up until Election Day had emphasized stories like the frazzled and unprofessional nature of the Trump effort, in contrast to the
finely honed Hillary ground game and the surging anti-Trump Latino vote. On election eve, Times "data-driven" estimates had placed Hillary's chances
of victory at 84 percent, but a Times reader would have been hard put to explain how there could be any doubt about the outcome at all, so missing
were respectable arguments for Trump from the paper's pages. The final pileup came on the morning after, when the headline acknowledging Trump's
victory seemed to parody the solipsism of the paper's editors. "Democrats, Students, and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of the Trump Presidency."
The editors could not bring themselves to acknowledge that the nation's voters had opted for fundamental change and upended an election scenario long
assumed inevitable by bicoastal elites.

In the interceding two months, some flashes of the Times' pledges to cover the Trump phenomenon with more objectivity were apparent: one report on
women who voted for Trump allowed them to speak in their own words, as did a recent story on voters who backed Trump's immigration restrictions. But
emphasis on 'the lie" illustrates that in its present incarnation the Times is not going to reform itself. The paper's reporters, editors and
columnists-with a handful of exceptions-harbor a visceral hatred for Donald Trump and feel it their higher calling to act on their hate in everything
they put in the paper. When it comes to Trump's ties to Russia, the paper has acted upon the thinnest of evidence to lodge the most sweeping of
claims against Trump. Is it lying, or just engaging in reckless hyperbole?

However biased the Times' Trump coverage, the consequences were mild compared to the paper's record in the run-up to the Iraq War. In the year prior
to the invasion of Iraq, the Times published numerous front-page 'scoops" based primarily on fake facts leaked to its reporters from Iraqi defectors
whose goal was to spur an invasion of Iraq. Judith Miller wrote several stories promoting disinformation from the notorious fabricator Ahmed Chalabi
and others in his network; so, too, did the Times give credulous play to the most alarming (and incorrect) administration interpretations of Saddam's
effort to procure aluminum tubes. As some media analysts have pointed out, numerous voices in the intelligence and nonproliferation world doubted the
claims reported in the Times scoops, and tried to warn the paper. The Times customarily ignored them, or buried skeptical voices in small paragraphs
deep inside the paper.

A year after the invasion, after no "weapons of mass destruction" had turned up, the Times acknowledged in an editor's note that its coverage was
"not as rigorous as it should have been." It explained that "editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for
more skepticism" failed to do so. In short, the Times had printed a great deal of what might fairly be called "fake news."

Unlike many political untruths, the Times' false Iraq coverage was enormously consequential. As perhaps the principal voice of the liberal
establishment, it played a critical role in persuading the leading Democrats to go along with the hawks in the Bush administration while
marginalizing those who challenged the administration's war plans. The results are all too tragically evident. The conflagration pushed by the Times
has left the Middle East in havoc fourteen years later. Millions of people have been killed or displaced, vast refugee flows that threaten to
destabilize close allies have been unleashed, hundreds of thousands of American veterans have been left permanently disabled. Given that its own lack
of truthful reporting had an immeasurable and tragic real-life impact on the lives of tens of millions, one might have hoped the Times would be more
circumspect about how it characterized Trump's transparent and inconsequential boasts about the size of his Inauguration Day crowd or the degree of
voter fraud. And if the president's concerns about voter fraud are indeed baseless, it would be logical for the Times to support voter-identification
measures that would render them moot.

The bottom line is that if the Times is determined to create a new standard for what constitutes lying by a president, then the newspaper cannot
exempt itself from that standard either. The Times, in other words, has been repeatedly lying for months about Trump and for years about other
matters. Is that really a path that a paper that purports to contain "all the news fit to print" really wants to embark upon? Apparently so.

=====

Trump WINS!

Donald Trump is the 47th U.S. president, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in the 2024 election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump, 78, will begin his second term early next year.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the U.S. President on Monday, January 20, 2025, on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

A Second Trump Administration

Loading...